SchorschWith regard to the A400M, what would the speed differentials be like to enable it to support fast jets efficiently?
Yes, no problem, you can refuel helicopters and fighters in one mission.
It is not a C-130.
SchorschAs wilhelm kindly mentioned I meant that the R35-300 was already more powerful than the Al-31 models being mentioned and its fuel efficiency is not that bad from memory… the Mig-23 already has reasonable range.
It does when flying in a best range profile.
Turbojets generally have undesirable fuel consumption at cruise Mach number. The R-35 sure isn’t a notorious gas guzzler as the earlier models were, but it still does not fully use the potential of the MiG-23’s airframe (note that the F-14 has a comparable fuel fraction as the MiG-23 and still achieves better range/endurance).
SchorschThe Su-27 was popularly called the “F-15 Killer” while the Mig-29 was the “F-16 Killer” 😉
Or maybe the “Destroyer of Imperialism and Fascism in the Skies” … a bit too long maybe …
I heard the Russians stick to the NATO-names more and more as they are much better known than any Russian names. Some aircraft however don’t have really nice names like … Frogfoot.
But names like Flanker or Bear sound nice.
SchorschTrade restrictions on the AMRAAM make it untenable for a lot of countries.
That’s what makes BVR-weapons generally unattractive: high dependency on the country of origin. Although missiles qualify as ammunition these weapons are hell complicated and need constant maintenance. Additionally, if not updated regularly the become quite useless after a few years.
Good example is Iran and its fabulous Tomcats, which weapon system isn’t worth a dime today.
IR-AAM are in the contrary easier to replace from other sources and some components can be bought elsewhere. The lower price makes them easier to stock. Of course, nobody is afraid of an AIM-9B any more, but a 1982′ AIM-9L still may rock the house when a 1982 APG-63+AIM-7F Sparrow doesn’t really rule the skies any more.
Schorschwho is saying that speed is related to installed thrust ? speed is related to the performance of the engine compressor-the R29 engine has more limitations in this regard, which cause flameouts when the MiG-27 is stretched or if the speed is lower than design specs (which are way too limiting). in fact, the MiG-23/27 are the most attrition-prone aircraft in the IAF, far more so than the MiG-21, when compared in percentage terms of how many aircraft the IAF has and how many have crashed.
the airflow speed is related to the engine- if the R29 engine was not designed to operate at lower than 400 km/h at certain altitudes, then that is a big design deficiency. in most cases, the pilot would be strained trying to attack a target in a mountainous terrain while maintaining high speed. the fact is that the Al-31F and the RD-33 engines were far superior to the R-29 engine because they allowed for a much larger flight envelope.
basically, the Al-31F allows the MiG-27 to be used far more effectively because it will prevent flameouts at speeds that are nominal for any ground attack aircraft..
also, a pilot in a real war scenario, attacking targets between mountains, where maneuvering a MiG-27 is a very tricky thing, could easily fly below such high speed design limitations. the Al-31F can take the same airframe and get rid of these limitations- limitations that are very well known for the MiG-27. a recent CAG report had criticised how HAL’s upgrade did not take care of the design limitations of the MiG-27.
400 km/h is equal to 216kts and as such an absolute no-go speed for any supersonic aircraft except for take-off and landing. The tactical benefits you name are non sense, no sane pilot would cross a battlefield with 220 kts. The MiG-27 is no CAS aircraft, it comes and strikes and gets the hell out.
I guess that the engine doesn’t flame out in dry thrust but may when the A/B is lighted.
The attrition rate is due to several things. The MiG-23/27 series never was an easy contemporary.
SchorschAs for square-cube, see
http://aero.stanford.edu/bwbfiles/largeACopt.html
The limit does not seem to be nigh.
Overflew the study. The numbers for the A380 (=A3XX) are 100tons low in weight and the wing span way too high. If it was that easy Airbus wouldn’t employ hundreds of engineers in flight physics. In general an aircraft larger in size than the A380 wouldn’t not gain in structural efficiency.
SchorschBVR makes the whole thing expensive. Larger missile (even though e.g. Derby is rather smallish), a more powerful radar in a lager diameter nose, a longer and heavier aircraft. And that was that with cheap. Same goes for multirole. Or multi engine; times when two J85 were cheaper than one J79 are passé.
And if you are short on cash and have to operate the machine somewhere from less than perfect bases, fancy plastic materials are also a problem. Go Chevy – repair it with a hammer.
Large diameter radars and heavy BVR-equipment is stuff of the past. You can hang an AMRAAM on basically any aircraft. If it makes sense is a different question. That battles with sophisticated missiles beyond visual range are the most unlikely case for a have-not air force is clear, but it will need years before we can convince the average John Doe that supermaneuverability and 60+km BVR is not the current standard (and will likely never be).
SchorschIt would be more exciting to see them add AL-37F(U) than the AL-31F. The response one gets with tvc matched to a smart modernized terrain following radar navigation system backed by glosnass would allow it to fly lower, faster, and at the same time maneuver better than anything else on the market for that mission. Give it some decent self-defense jamming to spice it up. It may not have the long legs, but it still would make it something like an Aardvark Lite.
TVC wouldn’t bring any gain, and would need considerable design effort. The flight control design of such an aircraft does not suffice to integrate TVC.
As Sens said, more power wouldn’t make it much faster when low. The top speed is usually limited by transonic drag rise. There drag increases about 50 to 100% (when carrying external loads) from M0.85 to M0.9. As you will hardly have 50 to 100% more power, it would likely give you another one or two Mach counts (0.01-0.02), nothing that changes mission success rate. May be helpful for climb, high altitude performance and field performance.
Schorschuse a less thrilling radar, which may mean no AMRAAM but def no Harpoon or Slammer, but people buying J-7s, JF-17s, Golden Eagles, etc probably aren’t expecting to use such weapons on those aircraft either.
Supporting an AMRAAM or any other active homing missile is much simpler than supporting a Sparrow. You simply have to tell the missile where to go. With a Sparrow you need a radar that sends out a tracking beam, aligns the missile seeker with the tracking beam and keeps the track until the missile hits its targets.
SchorschFor what it’s worth, in February 2008, CFM clarified that its Leap56 predicted gains are compared to the latest CFM56 Tech Insertion configuration. CFM says it is targeting 10 – 15 percent lower specific fuel consumption; 15 percent lower maintenance costs; 25 percent longer initial on-wing life; a 10 – 15 decibel reduction in noise; and a 60 percent reduction in NOx emissions.
That would suffice to power a “next generation” single aisle.
I guess P&W will be sooner on the market with its GTF, while not sure if the GTF can bring similar gains then.
It will be interesting if any other engine company enter the market (Rolls Royce, MTU).
Schorschadd to that the improvement in slow speed flight envelope..the MiG-27 with AL-31F-30 will be able to fly at 200 knots without stalling as compared to 400 knots. will definitely help pilots considering that this is a attack jet.
200kts is fully swept forward and 400kts is fully swept back. Nothing to do with the engine, only if the previous engine prevented the wings from swinging in forward position. 😉
Schorscha good cheap light weight fighter?
how about instead of the F-20 or the F/A-50
brand new F-16As before all that weight got added?
it was a pretty good light fighter that was cheap.. and then it evolved into
a medium sized walrus with bumps all over it because it began doing roles that it originally wasn’t designed for.If LM made an F-16 Lite, I think it’d do pretty well. Its already an agile aircraft that has pretty good (not as good as Gripen) operational costs.
An F-16A with MLU is still a useful aircraft for
The aircraft can basically support AMRAAM, while I would discard such a weapon as being too expensive and complex for most nations while offering too little advantage.
One should take a look into the F-16A’s weaponry options. It achieves useful range with 2 2000lbs bombs (or comparable) and one ECM pod while retaining basic defensive capability (it can drop tanks and bombs and will superior/equal to most aircraft in a2a combat).
SchorschAu contraire.
AFAIK, Lockheed Martin doesn’t sell secondhand F-16s, it sells new ones. Secondhand F-16s are sold by air forces. LM has a stake in the F/A-50, & benefits financially from any sales.
The F/A-50 is basically a scaled down F-16, for me it looks a bit like the YF-16 coming back.
Fun fact: The T-50 is given with 6350kg empty weight, the YF-16 is said to had an operating empty weight of 6366kg (14023lbs).
SchorschThis thread might be a bit premature……
I saw an article in a UK newspaper saying that, surprise, surprise, Italian trade unions might block this deal if they don’t like the business plan – incl. e.g. mass redundancies
Which would serve the ultimate goal of 100% spare time for their members.
SchorschIf my memory serves me well , I think we allready had an exellent thread regarding this very topic (or similar) which had some interesting discussions run a few years ago . Definately worth a search IMO
Here you go:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=56053&highlight=reconnaissance+F-5
You got to know the key words! 😉
I may point on this post:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=901367&postcount=88
I rate the last 2 pages interesting, the first 3 are dominated about a discussion if the F-5 can carry an AMRAAM:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=56053&page=4&highlight=reconnaissance+F-5
Sign In
